Malt liquors, and particularly porter, the favourite beverage of the inhabitants of London, and of other large towns, is amongst those articles, in the manufacture of which the greatest frauds are frequently committed.

The statute prohibits the brewer from using any ingredients in his brewings, except malt and hops; but it too often happens that those who suppose they are drinking a nutritious beverage, made of these ingredients only, are entirely deceived. The beverage may, in fact, be neither more nor less than a compound of the most deleterious substances; and it is also clear that all ranks of society are alike exposed to the nefarious fraud. The proofs of this statement will be shewn hereafter.[48]

The author[49] of a Practical Treatise on Brewing, which has run through eleven editions, after having stated the various ingredients for brewing porter, observes, "that however much they may surprise, however pernicious or disagreeable they may appear, he has always found them requisite in the brewing of porter, and he thinks they must invariably be used by those who wish to continue the taste, flavour, and appearance of the beer.[50] And though several Acts of Parliament have been passed to prevent porter brewers from using many of them, yet the author can affirm, from experience, he could never produce the present flavoured porter without them.[51] The intoxicating qualities of porter are to be ascribed to the various drugs intermixed with it. It is evident some porter is more heady than other, and it arises from the greater or less quantity of stupifying ingredients. Malt, to produce intoxication, must be used in such large quantities as would very much diminish, if not totally exclude, the brewer's profit."

The practice of adulterating beer appears to be of early date. By an Act so long ago as Queen Anne, the brewers are prohibited from mixing cocculus indicus, or any unwholesome ingredients, in their beer, under severe penalties: but few instances of convictions under this act are to be met with in the public records for nearly a century. To shew that they have augmented in our own days, we shall exhibit an abstract from documents laid lately before Parliament.[52]

These will not only amply prove, that unwholesome ingredients are used by fraudulent brewers, and that very deleterious substances are also vended both to brewers and publicans for adulterating beer, but that the ingredients mixed up in the brewer's enchanting cauldron are placed above all competition, even with the potent charms of Macbeth's witches:

The fraud of imparting to porter and ale an intoxicating quality by narcotic substances, appears to have flourished during the period of the late French war; for, if we examine the importation lists of drugs, it will be noticed that the quantities of cocculus indicus imported in a given time prior to that period, will bear no comparison with the quantity imported in the same space of time during the war, although an additional duty was laid upon this commodity. Such has been the amount brought into this country in five years, that it far exceeds the quantity imported during twelve years anterior to the above epoch. The price of this drug has risen within these ten years from two shillings to seven shillings the pound.

It was at the period to which we have alluded, that the preparation of an extract of cocculus indicus first appeared, as a new saleable commodity, in the price-currents of brewers'-druggists. It was at the same time, also, that a Mr. Jackson, of notorious memory, fell upon the idea of brewing beer from various drugs, without any malt and hops. This chemist did not turn brewer himself; but he struck out the more profitable trade of teaching his mystery to the brewers for a handsome fee. From that time forwards, written directions, and recipe-books for using the chemical preparations to be substituted for malt and hops, were respectively sold; and many adepts soon afterwards appeared every where, to instruct brewers in the nefarious practice, first pointed out by Mr. Jackson. From that time, also, the fraternity of brewers'-chemists took its rise. They made it their chief business to send travellers all over the country with lists and samples exhibiting the price and quality of the articles manufactured by them for the use of brewers only. Their trade spread far and wide, but it was amongst the country brewers chiefly that they found the most customers; and it is amongst them, up to the present day, as I am assured by some of these operators, on whose veracity I can rely, that the greatest quantities of unlawful ingredients are sold.

The Act of Parliament[53] prohibits chemists, grocers, and druggists, from supplying illegal ingredients to brewers under a heavy penalty, as is obvious from the following abstract of the Act.

"No druggist, vender of, or dealer in drugs, or chemist, or other person, shall sell or deliver to any licensed brewer, dealer in or retailer of beer, knowing him to be such, or shall sell or deliver to any person on account of or in trust for any such brewer, dealer or retailer, any liquor called by the name of or sold as colouring, from whatever material the same may be made, or any material or preparation other than unground brown malt for darkening the colour of worts or beer, or any liquor or preparation made use of for darkening the colour of worts or beer, or any molasses, honey, vitriol, quassia, cocculus Indian, grains of paradise, Guinea pepper or opium, or any extract or preparation of molasses, or any article or preparation to be used in worts or beer for or as a substitute for malt or hops; and if any druggist shall offend in any of these particulars, such liquor preparation, molasses, &c. shall be forfeited, and may be seized by any officer of excise, and the person so offending shall for each offence forfeit 500l."

The following is a list of druggists and grocers, prosecuted by the Court of Excise, and convicted of supplying unlawful ingredients to brewers.

List of Druggists and Grocers, prosecuted and convicted from 1812 to 1819, for supplying illegal Ingredients to Brewers for adulterating Beer.[54]

John Dunn and another, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, verdict 500l.

George Rugg and others, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, verdict 500l.

John Hodgkinson and others, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, 100l. and costs.

William Hiscocks and others, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200l. and costs.

G. Hornby; for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200l.

W. Wilson, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200l.

George Andrews, grocer, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 25l. and costs.

Guy Knowles, for selling substitute for hops, costs.

Kernot and Alsop, for selling cocculus india, &c. 25l.

Joseph Moss, for selling various drugs, 300l.

Ph. Whitcombe, John Dunn, and Arthur Waller, druggists, for having liquor for darkening the colour of beer, hid and concealed.

Isaac Hebberd, for having liquor for darkening the colour of beer, hid and concealed.

Ph. Whitcombe, John Dunn, and Arthur Waller, druggists, for making liquor for darkening the colour of beer.

John Lord, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20l. and costs.

John Smith Carr, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20l. and costs.

Edward Fox, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 25l. and costs.

John Cooper, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 40l. and costs.

Joseph Bickering, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 40l. and costs.

John Howard, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 25l. and costs.

James Reynolds, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs.

Thomas Hammond, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20l. and costs.

J. Mackway, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20l.

T. Renton, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and taking out a license.

R. Adamson, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and taking out a license.

W. Weaver, for selling Spanish liquorice to a brewer, 200l.

J. Moss, for selling Spanish liquorice to a brewer.

Alex. Braden, for selling liquorice, 20l.

J. Draper, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20l.

PORTER.

The method of brewing porter has not been the same at all times as it is at present.

At first, the only essential difference in the methods of brewing this liquor and that of other kinds of beer, was, that porter was brewed from brown malt only; and this gave to it both the colour and flavour required. Of late years it has been brewed from mixtures of pale and brown malt.

These, at some establishments, are mashed separately, and the worts from each are afterwards mixed together. The proportion of pale and brown malt, used for brewing porter, varies in different breweries; some employ nearly two parts of pale malt and one part of brown malt; but each brewer appears to have his own proportion; which the intelligent manufacturer varies, according to the nature and qualities of the malt. Three pounds of hops are, upon an average, allowed to every barrel, (thirty-six gallons) of porter.

When the price of malt, on account of the great increase in the price of barley during the late war, was very high, the London brewers discovered that a larger quantity of wort of a given strength could be obtained from pale malt than from brown malt. They therefore increased the quantity of the former and diminished that of the latter. This produced beer of a paler colour, and of a less bitter flavour. To remedy these disadvantages, they invented an artificial colouring substance, prepared by boiling brown sugar till it acquired a very dark brown colour; a solution of which was employed to darken the colour of the beer. Some brewers made use of the infusion of malt instead of sugar colouring. To impart to the beer a bitter taste, the fraudulent brewer employed quassia wood and wormwood as a substitute for hops.

But as the colouring of beer by means of sugar became in many instances a pretext for using illegal ingredients, the Legislature, apprehensive from the mischief that might, and actually did, result from it, passed an Act prohibiting the use of burnt sugar, in July 1817; and nothing but malt and hops is now allowed to enter into the composition of beer: even the use of isinglass for clarifying beer, is contrary to law.

No sooner had the beer-colouring Act been repealed, than other persons obtained a patent for effecting the purpose of imparting an artificial colour to porter, by means of brown malt, specifically prepared for that purpose only. The beer, coloured by the new method, is more liable to become spoiled, than when coloured by the process formerly practised. The colouring malt does not contain any considerable portion of saccharine matter. The grain is by mere torrefaction converted into a gum-like substance, wholly soluble in water, which renders the beer more liable to pass into the acetous fermentation than the common brown malt is capable of doing; because the latter, if prepared from good barley, contains a portion of saccharine matter, of which the patent malt is destitute.

But as brown malt is generally prepared from the worst kind of barley, and as the patent malt can only be made from good grain, it may become, on that account, an useful article to the brewer (at least, it gives colour and body to the beer;) but it cannot materially economise the quantity of malt necessary to produce good porter. Some brewers of eminence in this town have assured me, that the use of this mode of colouring beer is wholly unnecessary; and that porter of the requisite colour may be brewed better without it; hence this kind of malt is not used in their establishments. The quantity of gum-like matter which it contains, gives too much ferment to the beer, and renders it liable to spoil. Repeated experiments, made on a large scale, have settled this fact.

STRENGTH AND SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PORTER.

The strength of all kinds of beer, like that of wine, depends on the quantity of spirit contained in a given bulk of the liquor.

The reader need scarcely be told, that of no article there are more varieties than of porter. This, no doubt, arises from the different mode of manufacturing the beer, although the ingredients are the same. This difference is more striking in the porter manufactured among country brewers, than it is in the beer brewed by the eminent London porter brewers. The totality of the London porter exhibits but very slight differences, both with respect to strength or quantity of spirit, and solid extractive matter, contained in a given bulk of it. The spirit may be stated, upon an average, to be 4,50 per cent. in porter retailed at the publicans; the solid matter, is from twenty-one to twenty-three pounds per barrel of thirty-six gallons. The country-brewed porter is seldom well fermented, and seldom contains so large a quantity of spirit; it usually abounds in mucilage; hence it becomes turbid when mixed with alcohol. Such beer cannot keep, without becoming sour.

It has been matter of frequent complaint, that ALL the porter now brewed, is not what porter was formerly. This idea may be true with some exceptions. My professional occupations have, during these twenty-eight years, repeatedly obliged me to examine the strength of London porter, brewed by different brewers; and, from the minutes made on that subject, I am authorised to state, that the porter now brewed by the eminent London brewers, is unquestionably stronger than that which was brewed at different periods during the late French war. Samples of brown stout with which I have been obligingly favoured, whilst writing this Treatise, by Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co.—Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Co.—Messrs. Henry Meux and Co.—and other eminent brewers of this capital—afforded, upon an average, 7,25 per cent. of alcohol, of 0,833 specific gravity; and porter, from the same houses, yielded upon an average 5,25 per cent. of alcohol, of the same specific gravity;[55] this beer received from the brewers was taken from the same store from which the publicans are supplied.

It is nevertheless singular to observe, that from fifteen samples of beer of the same denominations, procured from different retailers, the proportions of spirit fell considerably short of the above quantities. Samples of brown stout, procured from the retailers, afforded, upon an average, 6,50 per cent. of alcohol; and the average strength of the porter was 4,50 per cent. Whence can this difference between the beer furnished by the brewer, and that retailed by the publican, arise? We shall not be at a loss to answer this question, when we find that so many retailers of porter have been prosecuted and convicted for mixing table beer with their strong beer; this is prohibited by law, as becomes obvious by the following words of the Act.[56]

"If any common or other brewer, innkeeper, victualler, or retailer of beer or ale, shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer, ale, or worts, with table beer, worts, or water, in any tub or measure, he shall forfeit 50l." The difference between strong and table beer, is thus settled by Parliament.

"All beer or ale[57] above the price of eighteen shillings per barrel, exclusive of ale duties now payable (viz. ten shillings per barrel,) or that may be hereafter payable in respect thereof, shall be deemed strong beer or ale; and all beer of the price of eighteen shillings the barrel or under, exclusive of the duty payable (viz. two shillings per barrel) in respect thereof, shall be deemed table beer within the meaning of this and all other Acts now in force, or that may hereafter be passed in relation to beer or ale or any duties thereon."

List of Publicans prosecuted and convicted from 1815 to 1818, for adulterating Beer with illegal Ingredients, and for mixing Table Beer with their Strong Beer.[58]

William Atterbury, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 40l.

Richard Dean, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50l.

John Jay, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50l.

James Atkinson, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 20l.

Samuel Langworth, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50l.

Hannah Spencer, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 150l.

—— Hoeg, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 5l.

Richard Craddock, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 100l.

James Harris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for receiving stale beer, and mixing it with strong beer, 42l. and costs.

Thomas Scoons, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing stale beer with strong beer, verdict 200l.

Diones Geer and another, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 400l.

Charles Coleman, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 35l. and costs.

William Orr, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 50l.

John Gardiner, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 100l.

John Morris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 20l.

John Harbur, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 50l.

John Corrie, for mixing strong beer with table beer.

John Cape, for mixing strong beer with table beer.

Joseph Gudge, for mixing strong beer with small beer.

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES USED FOR ADULTERATING BEER.

We have stated already (p. 113) that nothing is allowed by law to enter into the composition of beer, but malt and hops.

The substances used by fraudulent brewers for adulterating beer, are chiefly the following:

Quassia, which gives to beer a bitter taste, is substituted for hops; but hops possesses a more agreeable aromatic flavour, and there is also reason to believe that they render beer less liable to spoil by keeping; a property which does not belong to quassia. It requires but little discrimination to distinguish very clearly the peculiar bitterness of quassia in adulterated porter. Vast quantities of the shavings of this wood are sold in a half-torrefied and ground state to disguise its obvious character, and to prevent its being recognised among the waste materials of the brewers. Wormwood[59] has likewise been used by fraudulent brewers.

The adulterating of hops is prohibited by the Legislature.[60]

"If any person shall put any drug or ingredient whatever into hops to alter the colour or scent thereof, every person so offending, convicted by the oath of one witness before one justice of peace for the county or place where the offence was committed, shall forfeit 5l. for every hundred weight."

Beer rendered bitter by quassia never keeps well, unless it be kept in a place possessing a temperature considerably lower than the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere; and this is not well practicable in large establishments.

The use of boiling the wort of beer with hops, is partly to communicate a peculiar aromatic flavour which the hop contains, partly to cover the sweetness of undecomposed saccharine matter, and also to separate, by virtue of the gallic acid and tannin it contains, a portion of a peculiar vegetable mucilage somewhat resembling gluten, which is still diffused through the beer. The compound thus produced, separates in small flakes like those of curdled soap; and by these means the beer is rendered less liable to spoil. For nothing contributes more to the conversion of beer, or any other vinous fluid, into vinegar, than mucilage. Hence, also, all full-bodied and clammy ales, abounding in mucilage, and which are generally ill fermented, do not keep as perfect ale ought to do. Quassia is, therefore, unfit as a substitute for hops; and even English hops are preferable to those imported from the Continent; for nitrate of silver and acetate of lead produce a more abundant precipitate from an infusion of English hops, than can be obtained from a like infusion by the same agents from foreign hops.

One of the qualities of good porter, is, that it should bear a fine frothy head, as it is technically termed: because professed judges of this beverage, would not pronounce the liquor excellent, although it possessed all other good qualities of porter, without this requisite.

To impart to porter this property of frothing when poured from one vessel into another, or to produce what is also termed a cauliflower head, the mixture called beer-heading, composed of common green vitriol (sulphate of iron,) alum, and salt, is added. This addition to the beer is generally made by the publicans.[61] It is unnecessary to genuine beer, which of itself possesses the property of bearing a strong white froth, without these additions; and it is only in consequence of table beer being mixed with strong beer, that the frothing property of the porter is lost. From experiments I have tried on this subject, I have reason to believe that the sulphate of iron, added for that purpose, does not possess the power ascribed to it. But the publicans frequently, when they fine a butt of beer, by means of isinglass, adulterate the porter at the same time with table beer, together with a quantity of molasses and a small portion of extract of gentian root, to keep up the peculiar flavour of the porter; and it is to the molasses chiefly, which gives a spissitude to the beer, that the frothing property must be ascribed; for, without it, the sulphate of iron does not produce the property of frothing in diluted beer.

Capsicum and grains of paradise, two highly acrid substances, are employed to give a pungent taste to weak insipid beer. Of late, a concentrated tincture of these articles, to be used for a similar purpose, and possessing a powerful effect, has appeared in the price-currents of brewers' druggists. Ginger root, coriander seed, and orange peels, are employed as flavouring substances chiefly by the ale brewers.

From these statements, and the seizures that have been made of illegal ingredients at various breweries, it is obvious that the adulterations of beer are not imaginary. It will be noticed, however, that some of the sophistications are comparatively harmless, whilst others are effected by substances deleterious to health.

The following list exhibits some of the unlawful substances seized at different breweries and at chemical laboratories.

List of Illegal Ingredients, seized from 1812 to 1818, at various Breweries and Brewers' Druggists.[62]

Numerous other seizures of illegal substances, made at breweries, might be advanced, were it necessary to enlarge this subject to a greater extent.

Mr. James West, from the excise office, being asked in the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed, 1819, to examine and report on the petition of several inhabitants of London, complaining of the high price and inferior quality of beer, produced the following seized articles:—"One bladder of honey, one bladder of extract of cocculus indicus, ground guinea pepper or capsicum, vitriol or copperas, orange powder, quassia, ground beer-heading, hard multum, another kind of multum or beer preparation, liquorice powder, and ground grains of paradise."

Witness being asked "Where did you seize these things?" Answer, "Some of them were seized from brewers, and some of them from brewers' druggists, within these two years past." (May 8, 1818.)

Another fraud frequently committed, both by brewers and publicans, (as is evident from the Excise Report,) is the practice of adulterating strong beer with small beer—This fraud is prohibited by law, since both the revenue and the public suffer by it.[63] "The duty upon strong beer is ten shillings a barrel; and upon table beer it is two shillings. The revenue suffers, because a larger quantity of beer is sold as strong beer; that is, at a price exceeding the price of table beer, without the strong beer duty being paid. In the next place, the brewer suffers, because the retailer gets table or mild beer, and retails it as strong beer." The following are the words of the Act, prohibiting the brewers mixing table beer with strong beer.

"If any common brewer shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer, or strong worts with table beer or table worts, or with water in any guile or fermenting tun after the declaration of the quantity of such guile shall have been made; or if he shall at any time mix or suffer to be mixed strong beer or strong worts with table beer worts or with water, in any vat, cask, tub, measures or utensil, not being an entered guile or fermenting tun, he shall forfeit 200 pounds."[64]

With respect to the persons who commit this offence, Mr. Carr,[65] the Solicitor of the Excise, observes, that "they are generally brewers who carry on the double trade of brewing both strong and table beer. It is almost impossible to prevent them from mixing one with the other; and frauds of very great extent have been detected, and the parties punished for that offence. One brewer at Plymouth evaded duties to the amount of 32,000 pounds; and other brewers, who brew party guiles of beer, carrying on the two trades of ale and table beer brewers, where the trade is a victualling brewer, which is different from the common brewer, he being a person who sells only wholesale; the victualling brewer being a brewer and also a seller by retail."

"In the neighbourhood of London," Mr. Carr continues, "more particularly, I speak from having had great experience, from the informations and evidence which I have received, that the retailers carry on a most extensive fraud upon the public, in purchasing stale table beer, or the bottoms of casks. There are a class of men who go about and sell such beer at table-beer price to public victuallers, who mix it in their cellars. If they receive beer from their brewers which is mild, they purchase stale beer; and if they receive stale beer, they purchase common table beer for that purpose; and many of the prosecutions are against retailers for that offence." The following may serve in proof of this statement.

List of Brewers prosecuted and convicted from 1813 to 1819, for adulterating Strong Beer with Table Beer.[66]

Thomas Manton and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 300l.

Mark Morrell and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer, 20l. and costs.

Robert Jones and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 125l.

Robert Stroad, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 200l. and costs.

William Cobbett, brewer, mixing strong and table beer, 100l. and costs.

Thomas Richard Withers, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 75l. and costs.

John Cowel, brewer, for mixing table beer with strong, 50l. and costs.

John Mitchell, brewer, for mixing table beer with strong, absconded.

George Lloyd and another, brewers, for mixing table beer with strong, 25l. and costs.

James Edmunds and another, brewers, for mixing table beer with strong, for a long period, verdict 600l.

John Hoffman, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, and using molasses, 130l. and costs.

Samuel Langworth, brewer, for mixing strong with stale table beer, 10l. and costs.

Hannah Spencer, brewer, for mixing strong with stale table beer, verdict 150l.

Joseph Smith and others, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer.

Philip George, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 200l.

Joshua Row, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 400l.

John Drew, jun. and another, for mixing strong beer with table, 50l. and costs.

John Cape, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 250l. and costs.

John Williams and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 200l.

OLD, OR ENTIRE; AND NEW, OR MILD BEER.

It is necessary to state, that every publican has two sorts of beer sent to him from the brewer; the one is called mild, which is beer sent out fresh as it is brewed; the other is called old; that is, such as is brewed on purpose for keeping, and which has been kept in store a twelve-month or eighteen months. The origin of the beer called entire, is thus related by the editor of the Picture of London: "Before the year 1730, the malt liquors in general used in London were ale, beer, and two-penny; and it was customary to call for a pint, or tankard, of half-and-half, i.e. half of ale and half of beer, half of ale and half of two-penny. In course of time it also became the practice to call for a pint or tankard of three-threads, meaning a third of ale, beer, and two-penny; and thus the publican had the trouble to go to three casks, and turn three cocks, for a pint of liquor. To avoid this inconvenience and waste, a brewer of the name of Harwood conceived the idea of making a liquor, which should partake of the same united flavours of ale, beer, and two-penny; he did so, and succeeded, calling it entire, or entire butt, meaning that it was drawn entirely from one cask or butt; and as it was a very hearty and nourishing liquor, and supposed to be very suitable for porters and other working people, it obtained the name of porter." The system is now altered, and porter is very generally compounded of two kinds, or rather the same liquor in two different states, the due admixture of which is palatable, though neither is good alone. One is mild porter, and the other stale porter; the former is that which has a slightly bitter flavour; the latter has been kept longer. This mixture the publican adapts to the palates of his several customers, and effects the mixture very readily, by means of a machine, containing small pumps worked by handles. In these are four pumps, but only three spouts, because two of the pumps throw out at the same spout: one of these two pumps draws the mild, and the other the stale porter, from the casks down in the cellar; and the publican, by dexterously changing his hold works either pump, and draws both kinds of beer at the same spout. An indifferent observer supposes, that since it all comes from one spout, it is entire butt beer, as the publican professes over his door, and which has been decided by vulgar prejudice to be only good porter, though the difference is not easily distinguished. I have been informed by several eminent brewers, that of late, a far greater quantity is consumed of mild than of stale beer.

The entire beer of the modern brewer, according to the statement of C. Barclay,[67] Esq. "consists of some beer brewed expressly for the purpose of keeping: it likewise contains a portion of returns from publicans; a portion of beer from the bottoms of vats; the beer that is drawn off from the pipes, which convey the beer from one vat to another, and from one part of the premises to another. This beer is collected and put into vats. Mr. Barclay also states that it contains a certain portion of brown stout, which is twenty shillings a barrel dearer than common beer; and some bottling beer, which is ten shillings a barrel dearer;[68] and that all these beers, united, are put into vats, and that it depends upon various circumstances, how long they may remain in those vats before they become perfectly bright. When bright, this beer is sent out to the publicans, for their entire beer, and there is sometimes a small quantity of mild beer mixed with it."

The present entire beer, therefore, is a very heterogeneous mixture, composed of all the waste and spoiled beer of the publicans—the bottoms of butts—the leavings of the pots—the drippings of the machines for drawing the beer—the remnants of beer that lay in the leaden pipes of the brewery, with a portion of brown stout, bottling beer, and mild beer.

The old or entire beer we have examined, as obtained from Messrs. Barclay's, and other eminent London brewers, is unquestionably a good compound; but it does no longer appear to be necessary, among fraudulent brewers, to brew beer on purpose for keeping, or to keep it twelve or eighteen months. A more easy, expeditious, and economical method has been discovered to convert any sort of beer into entire beer, merely by the admixture of a portion of sulphuric acid. An imitation of the age of eighteen months is thus produced in an instant. This process is technically called to bring beer forward, or to make it hard.

The practice is a bad one. The genuine, old, or entire beer, of the honest brewer, is quite a different compound; it has a rich, generous, full-bodied taste, without being acid, and a vinous odour: but it may, perhaps, not be generally known that this kind of beer always affords a less proportion of alcohol than is produced from mild beer. The practice of bringing beer forward, it is to be understood, is resorted to only by fraudulent brewers.[69]

If, on the contrary, the brewer has too large a stock of old beer on his hands, recourse is had to an opposite practice of converting stale, half-spoiled, or sour beer, into mild beer, by the simple admixture of an alkali, or an alkaline earth. Oyster-shell powder and subcarbonate of potash, or soda, are usually employed for that purpose. These substances neutralise the excess of acid, and render sour beer somewhat palatable. By this process the beer becomes very liable to spoil.

It is the worst expedient that the brewer can practise: the beer thus rendered mild, soon loses its vinous taste; it becomes vapid; and speedily assumes a muddy grey colour, and an exceedingly disagreeable taste.

These sophistications may be considered, at first, as minor crimes practised by fraudulent brewers, when compared with the methods employed by them for rendering beer noxious to health by substances absolutely injurious.

To increase the intoxicating quality of beer, the deleterious vegetable substance, called cocculus indicus, and the extract of this poisonous berry, technically called black extract, or, by some, hard multum, are employed. Opium, tobacco, nux vomica, and extract of poppies, have also been used.

This fraud constitutes by far the most censurable offence committed by unprincipled brewers; and it is a lamentable reflection to behold so great a number of brewers prosecuted and convicted of this crime; nor is it less deplorable to find the names of druggists, eminent in trade, implicated in the fraud, by selling the unlawful ingredients to brewers for fraudulent purposes.

List of Brewers prosecuted and convicted from 1813 to 1819, for receiving and using illegal Ingredients in their Brewings.[70]

Richard Gardner, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, 100l., judgment by default.

Stephen Webb and another, brewers, for using adulterating ingredients, and mixing strong and table beer, verdict 500l.

Henry Wyatt, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, verdict 400l.

John Harbart, retailer, for receiving adulterating ingredients, verdict 150l.

Philip Blake and others, brewers, for using adulterating ingredients, and mixing strong and table beer, verdict 250l.

James Sneed, for receiving adulterating ingredients, 25l. and costs.

John Rewell and another, brewers, ditto, verdict 100l.

John Swain and another, ditto, for using adulterating ingredients, verdict 200l.

John Ing, brewer, ditto, stayed on defendant's death.

John Hall, ditto, for receiving adulterating ingredients, 5l. and costs.

John Webb, retailer, for using adulterating ingredients.

Ralph Fogg and another, brewers, for receiving and using adulterating ingredients.

John Gray, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, 300l. and costs.

Richard Bowman, for using liquid in bladder, supposed to be extract of cocculus, 100l.

Richard Bowman, brewer, for ditto, 100l. and costs.

Septimus Stephens, brewer, for ditto, verdict 50l.

James Rogers and another, brewer, for ditto, 220l. and costs.

George Moore, brewer, for using colouring, 300l. and costs.

John Morris, for using adulterating ingredients.

Webb and Ball, for using ginger, Guinea pepper, and brown powder, (name unknown), 1st 100l. 2nd 500l.

Henry Clarke, for using molasses, 150l.

Kewell and Burrows, for using cocculus india, multum, &c. 100l.

Allatson and Abraham, for using cocculus india, multum, and porter flavour, 630l.

Swain and Sewell, for using cocculus india, Guinea-opium, &c. 200l.

John Ing, for using cocculus india, hard colouring, and honey, dead.

William Dean, for using molasses, 50l.

John Cowell, for using Spanish-liquorice, and mixing table beer with strong beer, 50l.

John Mitchell, for using cocculus india, vitriol, and Guinea pepper, left the country.

Lloyd and Man, for using extract of cocculus, 25l.

John Gray, for using ginger, hartshorn shavings, and molasses, 300l.

Jon Hoffman, for using molasses, Spanish juice, and mixing table with strong beer, 130l.

Rogers and Boon, for using extract of cocculus, multum, porter flavour, &c. 220l.

—— Betteley, for using wormwood, coriander seed, and Spanish juice, 200l.

William Lane, brewer, for using wormwood instead of hops, 5l. and costs.

That a minute portion of an unwholesome ingredient, daily taken in beer, cannot fail to be productive of mischief, admits of no doubt; and there is reasons to believe that a small quantity of a narcotic substance (and cocculus indicus is a powerful narcotic[71]), daily taken into the stomach, together with an intoxicating liquor, is highly more efficacious than it would be without the liquor. The effect may be gradual; and a strong constitution, especially if it be assisted with constant and hard labour, may counteract the destructive consequences perhaps for many years; but it never fails to shew its baneful effects at last. Independent of this, it is a well-established fact, that porter drinkers are very liable to apoplexy and palsy, without taking this narcotic poison.

If we judge from the preceding lists of prosecutions and convictions furnished by the Solicitor of the Excise[72], it will be evident that many wholesale brewers, as well as retail dealers, stand very conspicuous among those offenders. But the reader will likewise notice, that there are no convictions, in any instance, against any of the eleven great London porter brewers[73] for any illegal practice. The great London brewers, it appears, believe that the publicans alone adulterate the beer. That many of the latter have been convicted of this fraud, the Report of the Board of Excise amply shews.—See p. 129.

The following statement relating to this subject, we transcribe from a Parliamentary document:[74]

Mr. Perkins being asked, whether he believed that any of the inferior brewers adulterated beer, answered, "I am satisfied there are some instances of that."

Question.—"Do you believe publicans do?" Answer.—"I believe they do." Q.—"To a great extent?" A.—"Yes." Q.—"Do you believe they adulterate the beer you sell them?" A.—"I am satisfied there are some instances of that."—Mr. J. Martineau[75] being asked the following

Question.[76]—"In your judgment is any of the beer of the metropolis, as retailed to the publican, mixed with any deleterious ingredients?"

Answer.—"In retailing beer, in some instances, it has been."

Question.—"By whom, in your opinion, has that been done?"

Answer.—"In that case by the publicans who vend it."

On this point, it is but fair, to the minor brewers, to record also the answers of some officers of the revenue, when they were asked whether they considered it more difficult to detect nefarious practices in large breweries than in small ones.

Mr. J. Rogers being thus questioned in the Committee of the House of Commons,[77] "Supposing the large brewers to use deleterious or any illegal ingredients to such an amount as could be of any importance to their concern, do you think it would, or would not, be more easy to detect it in those large breweries, than in small ones?" his answer was, "more difficult to detect it in the large ones:" and witness being asked to state the reason why, answered, "Their premises are so much larger, and there is so much more strength, that a cart load or two is got rid of in a minute or two." Witness "had known, in five minutes, twenty barrels of molasses got rid of as soon as the door was shut."

Another witness, W. Wells, an excise officer,[78] in describing the contrivances used to prevent detection, stated, that at a brewer's, at Westham, the adulterating substances "were not kept on the premises, but in the brewer's house; not the principal, but the working brewers; it not being considered, when there, as liable to seizure: the brewer had a very large jacket made expressly for that purpose, with very large pockets; and, on brewing mornings, he would take his pockets full of the different ingredients. Witness supposed that such a man's jacket, similar to what he had described, would convey quite sufficient for any brewery in England, as to cocculus indicus."

That it may be more difficult for the officers of the excise to detect fraudulent practices in large breweries than in small ones, may be true to a certain extent: but what eminent London porter brewer would stake his reputation on the chance of so paltry a gain, in which he would inevitably be at the mercy of his own man? The eleven great porter brewers of this metropolis are persons of so high respectability, that there is no ground for the slightest suspicion that they would attempt any illegal practices, which they were aware could not possibly escape detection in their extensive establishments. And let it be remembered, that none of them have been detected for any unlawful practices,[79] with regard to the processes of their manufacture, or the adulteration of their beer.

METHOD OF DETECTING THE ADULTERATION OF BEER.

The detection of the adulteration of beer with deleterious vegetable substances is beyond the reach of chemical analysis. The presence of sulphate of iron (p. 134) may be detected by evaporating the beer to perfect dryness, and burning away the vegetable matter obtained, by the action of chlorate of pot-ash in a red-hot crucible. The sulphate of iron will be left behind among the residue in the crucible, which when dissolved in water, may be assayed, for the constituent parts of the salt, namely, iron and sulphuric acid: for the former, by tincture of galls, ammonia, and prussiate of potash; and for the latter, by muriate of barytes.[80]

Beer, which has been rendered fraudulently hard (see p. 148) by the admixture of sulphuric acid, affords a white precipitate (sulphate of barytes), by dropping into it a solution of acetate or muriate of barytes; and this precipitate, when collected by filtering the mass, and after having been dried, and heated red-hot for a few minutes in a platina crucible, does not disappear by the addition of nitric, or muriatic acid. Genuine old beer may produce a precipitate; but the precipitate which it affords, after having been made red-hot in a platina crucible, instantly becomes re-dissolved with effervescence by pouring on it some pure nitric or muriatic acid; in that case the precipitate is malate (not sulphate) of barytes, and is owing to a portion of malic acid having been formed in the beer.

But with regard to the vegetable materials deleterious to health, it is extremely difficult, in any instance, to detect them by chemical agencies; and in most cases it is quite impossible, as in that of cocculus indicus in beer.

METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE QUANTITY OF SPIRIT CONTAINED IN PORTER, ALE, OR OTHER KINDS OF MALT LIQUORS.

Take any quantity of the beer, put it into a glass retort, furnished with a receiver, and distil, with a gentle heat, as long as any spirit passes over into the receiver; which may be known by heating from time to time a small quantity of the obtained fluid in a tea-spoon over a candle, and bringing into contact with the vapour of it the flame of a piece of paper. If the vapour of the distilled fluid catches fire, the distillation must be continued until the vapour ceases to be set on fire by the contact of a flaming body. To the distilled liquid thus obtained, which is the spirit of the beer, combined with water, add, in small quantities at a time, pure subcarbonate of potash (previously freed from water by having been exposed to a red heat,) till the last portion of this salt added, remains undissolved in the fluid. The spirit will thus become separated from the water, because the subcarbonate of potash abstracts from it the whole of the water which it contained; and this combination sinks to the bottom, and the spirit alone floats on the top. If this experiment be made in a glass tube, about half or three-quarters of an inch in diameter, and graduated into 50 or 100 equal parts, the relative per centage of spirit in a given quantity of beer may be seen by mere inspection.

Quantity of Alcohol contained in Porter, Ale, and other kinds of Malt Liquors.[81]

[48] See pages 119, &c.